MAsters of the universe?
135
commentary as Sherlock’s showrunners, but I will avoid the term in this
essay, since its use oversimplifies Gatiss and Moffat’s relationship to their
source material, and the institutional dynamics of producing a commercially successful show for an independent company that is broadcast and
distributed by the BBC.
As Kate Harwood, former BBC Head of Drama for England, has expressed
it, British television tends to have lead writers rather than showrunners in the
American sense. The difference, for Harwood, is that American showrunners
have much greater autonomy, being responsible for the hiring and firing on
their shows, and leading a large team of writers whose output they oversee
for consistency of tone. 1 Examples of showrunners in American television
with a considerable degree of institutional power have included Matthew
Weiner (Mad Men), David Chase (The Sopranos), David Simon (The Wire),
and David Milch (Deadwood). 2 Although Moffat, in particular, carried a
good deal of institutional power as series co-creator of Sherlock as well as
being, at the time, executive producer and lead writer of Doctor Who (the
BBC’s two most lucrative television exports), in Sherlock the writing team
so far has consisted only of Moffat, Gatiss, and Stephen Thompson. Moffat’s
account of the writing process, given in the Q&A session after the premiere
of “His Last Vow,” suggests that for an episode like “The Sign of Three” all
three writers collaborated extensively: “we all did everything.” 3 So, while
the term “lead writer” may be misleading in the sense that these two writers
lead a writing team consisting of only one other person (Thompson, whose
role in any case appears to have diminished since the earlier series), it does
at least have the virtue of identifying Gatiss and Moffat’s role as writers (and
adaptors of Conan Doyle) without necessarily allowing the screenwriting
function to overshadow the creative contributions of others. 4 An alternative
label, “auteurs,” might be applied to Gatiss and Moffat, but I have opted for
“lead writers” instead on the grounds that “auteur” suggests a history of film
directing that is potentially misleading, 5 and which again may conflate a
range of different creative contributions to the show’s success (those of, say,
1 Poore, “Neverending Stories,” 73.
2 See Martin, Difficult Men, 8–9, 72–73, 147–148, and 252.
3 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A.”
4 For example, Paul McGuigan, who directed two episodes of series one and two, was responsible for key elements of Sherlock’s visual style, including the placing of text on the screen
to convey information read either on smartphones or in Sherlock’s head. See Tribe, Sherlock
Chronicles, 65–66, 102–105.
5 “The film director is king – on television, it’s the writer, so you have to get your head around
that,” remarks Paul McGuigan. Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 96.
135
commentary as Sherlock’s showrunners, but I will avoid the term in this
essay, since its use oversimplifies Gatiss and Moffat’s relationship to their
source material, and the institutional dynamics of producing a commercially successful show for an independent company that is broadcast and
distributed by the BBC.
As Kate Harwood, former BBC Head of Drama for England, has expressed
it, British television tends to have lead writers rather than showrunners in the
American sense. The difference, for Harwood, is that American showrunners
have much greater autonomy, being responsible for the hiring and firing on
their shows, and leading a large team of writers whose output they oversee
for consistency of tone. 1 Examples of showrunners in American television
with a considerable degree of institutional power have included Matthew
Weiner (Mad Men), David Chase (The Sopranos), David Simon (The Wire),
and David Milch (Deadwood). 2 Although Moffat, in particular, carried a
good deal of institutional power as series co-creator of Sherlock as well as
being, at the time, executive producer and lead writer of Doctor Who (the
BBC’s two most lucrative television exports), in Sherlock the writing team
so far has consisted only of Moffat, Gatiss, and Stephen Thompson. Moffat’s
account of the writing process, given in the Q&A session after the premiere
of “His Last Vow,” suggests that for an episode like “The Sign of Three” all
three writers collaborated extensively: “we all did everything.” 3 So, while
the term “lead writer” may be misleading in the sense that these two writers
lead a writing team consisting of only one other person (Thompson, whose
role in any case appears to have diminished since the earlier series), it does
at least have the virtue of identifying Gatiss and Moffat’s role as writers (and
adaptors of Conan Doyle) without necessarily allowing the screenwriting
function to overshadow the creative contributions of others. 4 An alternative
label, “auteurs,” might be applied to Gatiss and Moffat, but I have opted for
“lead writers” instead on the grounds that “auteur” suggests a history of film
directing that is potentially misleading, 5 and which again may conflate a
range of different creative contributions to the show’s success (those of, say,
1 Poore, “Neverending Stories,” 73.
2 See Martin, Difficult Men, 8–9, 72–73, 147–148, and 252.
3 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A.”
4 For example, Paul McGuigan, who directed two episodes of series one and two, was responsible for key elements of Sherlock’s visual style, including the placing of text on the screen
to convey information read either on smartphones or in Sherlock’s head. See Tribe, Sherlock
Chronicles, 65–66, 102–105.
5 “The film director is king – on television, it’s the writer, so you have to get your head around
that,” remarks Paul McGuigan. Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 96.